Niraparib Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response Relationships in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Niraparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved for the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Niraparib was originally approved in recurrent OC at a fixed starting dose (FSD) of 300 mg once daily (QD). This analysis characterized the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of niraparib and evaluated the relationships between exposure, efficacy, and safety to support clinical use of an individualized dosing strategy, in which the starting dose of niraparib was adjusted based on patient characteristics to improve the benefit-risk profile. METHODS: A population PK model was developed by pooling data from four niraparib clinical trials (PN001 [n = 104], QUADRA [n = 455], NOVA [n = 403], and PRIMA [n = 480]) in patients with solid tumors, including OC. Exposure-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationships of niraparib exposure with progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events in the PRIMA study. A multivariate logistic regression model was also developed to estimate the probability of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, using data from patients enrolled in PRIMA and NOVA. The impact of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen (200 mg QD in patients with body weight [BW] <77 kg or platelet count [PLT] <150,000/µL, or 300 mg QD in patients with BW ≥77 kg and PLT ≥150,000/µL) on systemic exposure, efficacy, and safety was assessed. FINDINGS: Niraparib disposition was best described by a 3-compartment model with linear elimination. Key covariates included baseline creatinine clearance, BW, albumin, and age, all of which had minor effects on niraparib exposure. Comparable model-predicted exposure up to the time of disease progression/death or censoring in the 300-mg FSD and 200-/300-mg ISD groups was consistent with the lower rate of dose reduction in the ISD groups. No consistent niraparib exposure-response relationship was observed for efficacy in all PRIMA patients (first-line OC), and no statistically significant difference was seen in PFS curves for patients receiving a niraparib dose of 200 mg versus 300 mg. In the multivariate regression model, performed using combined data from PRIMA and NOVA, higher niraparib exposure (area under the concentration-time curve at steady-state [AUCss]), lower BW, and lower PLT were associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. IMPLICATIONS: Population PK and exposure-response analyses support use of an ISD to improve the safety profile of niraparib, including reducing the rate of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia, without compromising efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01847274 (NOVA), NCT00749502 (PN001), NCT02655016 (PRIMA), NCT02354586 (QUADRA), www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Efficacy and safety of niraparib in patients aged 65 years and older with advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD). RESULTS: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups. CONCLUSION: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age.

Intraoperative Ketorolac and Outcomes after Ovarian Cancer Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the cornerstone of ovarian cancer treatment. However, surgery and perioperative inflammation have been described as potentially pro-metastagenic. In various animal models and other human cancers, intraoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) appears to have a positive impact on patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this unicentric retrospective study, we provide an exploratory analysis of the safety and potential benefit of intraoperative administration of ketorolac on the outcome of patients undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer. The study population included all patients who were given a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer by the multidisciplinary oncology committee (MOC) of the Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: We included 166 patients in our analyses, with a median follow-up of 21.8 months. Both progression-free survival and overall survival were superior in patients who received an intraoperative injection of ketorolac (34.4 months of progression-free survival in the ketorolac group versus 21.5 months in the non-ketorolac group (p = 0.002), and median overall survival was not reached in either group but there was significantly higher survival in the ketorolac group (p = 0.004)). We also performed subgroup analyses to minimise bias due to imbalance between groups on factors that could influence patient survival, and the group of patients receiving ketorolac systematically showed a better outcome. Uni- and multivariate analyses confirmed that administration of ketorolac intraoperatively was associated with better progression-free survival (HR = 0.47 on univariate analysis and 0.43 on multivariate analysis, p = 0.003 and 0.023, respectively). In terms of complications, there were no differences between the two groups, either intraoperatively or postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Our study has shown a favourable association between the use of ketorolac during surgery and the postoperative progression of ovarian cancer in a group of 166 patients, without any rise in intra- or postoperative complications. These encouraging results point to the need for a prospective study to confirm the benefit of intraoperative administration of ketorolac in ovarian cancer surgery.

Health-related quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer treated with niraparib vs placebo: Results from the phase 3 randomized PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib as first-line maintenance therapy. METHODS: PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed advanced OC who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized (2:1) to niraparib or placebo once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. HRQoL was assessed as a prespecified secondary end point using patient-reported responses to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Ovarian Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OV28), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Assessments were collected at baseline and every 8 weeks (±7 days) for 56 weeks, beginning on cycle 1/day 1, then every 12 weeks (±7 days) thereafter while the patient received study treatment. RESULTS: Among trial participants (niraparib, n = 487; placebo, n = 246), PRO adherence exceeded 80% for all instruments across all cycles. Patients reported no decline over time in HRQoL measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL and FOSI overall scores. Scores for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and constipation (EORTC QLQ-C30) were higher (worse symptoms) in niraparib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients; except for constipation, these differences resolved over time. Patients did not self-report any worsening from baseline of fatigue, headache, insomnia, or abdominal pain on questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some early, largely transient increases in gastrointestinal symptoms, patients with OC treated with niraparib first-line maintenance therapy reported no worsening in overall HRQoL.